Zoom lenses

[Furgus]

I have a Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6, and I like it. I have a D50 and it is my first dSLR, so hopefully next year I can get a nice prime Marco lens and a nicer zoom lens. BUt I have been pretty pleased with it. If you want to see some of my shots you can look at my blog listed as my website.

 

[Anewman]

For sports the old faithfull lens is the 70-200L(2.8 or 4.0).

But if on a budget get the 75-300 USM, Focus speed is more important than OPTICAL quality when it comes to sports. Canon USM is much faster than the Sigma or tamron offerings.

IS is great, but it is of no real use when it comes to shooting sports.

 

[0bli0]

avoid the Canon 90-300 (both USM and w/out USM) and 100-300 as they're slow AF and optically fairly poor.

the 70-300 IS is a very nice lens. sure, it's not an 'L', but the contrast is decent, there isn't too much chromatic aberation, and the IS works well (for animals, not sports). the 75-300 was a decent lens, but the IS was the first - very hard on batteries and not as good as the recent generations.

and yes, the Canon 70-200 models are all very good.

sigma does make a few very good zooms:
-120-300 F2.8 EX - fantastic lens and worth the price
-50-500 EX (aka 'Bigma'). this is my primary outdoor sports lens. i personally prefer this over the Canon 100-400 IS because i hate push/pull
-70-200 F2.8 EX - great colour, quick AF, and fantastic sharpness. almost as good as the Canon 2.8L

and a few decent Sigma zooms
-100-300 F4 EX colour is pretty good - beautiful bokeh for a lens this long. not as sharp until about F7.1
-300-800 EX - only lens at this distance. needs a very good tripod. not as sharp as most EX glass. if you have to ask the price, it's not for you...

also the 300 F2.8 is a great lens. sharp almost wide open, fast (AF and aperture), and great contrast. the only downside is for all that money, you want want a white label (aka look at me with my 'L'!).

avoid the following Sigma lenses:
-170-500 - soft and slow
-135-400 - slow AF. not too bad over F8. needs to be rechipped if you are getting the non DG version. not worth the price, IMHO.
-28-200, 28-300 - who are they kidding with the red stripes? these are often sold as quantary through Wolf/Ritz. slow, no Hypersonic. lots of chromatic issues.
-80-400 EX OS - the OS is no where as nice as Canon IS. it under-compensates, over-compensates, and eats the batteries. mode 2 when shooting landscape orientation isn't as bad - presumably because it's only compensating in one direction (designed for panning like motorsports). with OS off, it's nicely sharp and beautiful bokeh. but it's only a few bucks cheaper than the 100-400 IS L...

 

[PoohJen]

For sports the old faithfull lens is the 70-200L(2.8 or 4.0).

LOL Anewman, I am hopelessly green with all the technical stuff, but the one thing I have learned about lenses is L = $$$

Thanks for the answers! Looks like I've got a little more research ahead of me...

 

[mhutchinson]

The 70-200 f/4 L is a very nice outdoor lens (or flash supported inside), I took this option instead of the 70-300 IS USM because the price is so close and the picture quality is better with the L. Of the two IS models 75-300 and the newer 70-300, you might want to avoid the 75-300 because it does go soft near 200mm. But if you really want an investment pick up the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS with a 1.4X teleconverter II, you'll get about the same range (70-200mm @f/2.8 and 98-280mm @f/4.0) PLUS it is a great way to drop a lot of money at once.... with a bonus of Lens envy to others around you

The lens is an investment, it usually stays around after the camera bodies have changed. I will still grab some of the older 35mm EF lenses that I have to mount on my 20D and they work just fine.

Mike

 

[jann1033]

poohjen i sent you an email as your pm box is full so if you see a weird "janf2" address it's me

 

[chirurgeon]

I have a Rebel XT, and I want a macro lens for it. I don't want to spend a fortune. This is a hobby, I already spent my fortune on the camera. Any suggetions?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro.

 

[TSBRN]

Currently I have an Olympus Sylus with a 3x zoom. I need to take pictures of my sons from the stands into the stadium (marching band). Any idea of how much zoom I need for something like that? Also, I am new to digital photography and would need a camera that is easy to use if anyone has recommendations. Thanks for any help you can offer!

 

[Bojo]

One can never have too much zoom. Stay away from digital zoom - optical is where its at!

If you want individual faces from the stands, you will need at least 10X optical zoom. You may also want something that offers image stabalization as well.

 

[TSBRN]

Thanks Bojo
I already learned how bad digital zoom is firshand!

 

[alsipd]

As BOJO says, 10x optical is good. anything over that you risk camera shake if handheld. I did sports photography for a long time and I nerver had more than a 6x zoom. Try positioning yourself in a different location than the stands. For high school or college, you should be able to get near or on the field with a little coaxing. Getting the good shot is usually good position and lucky anticipation.

Good shooting!

 

[0bli0]

remember the zoom 'X' doesn't necessarily mean you're getting a specific length telephoto lens. generally speaking, the 3x zoom means: at the long end, the focal length is 3 times longer than the focal length at the wide end. the standard 3x zooms (for most small p&s) today are roughly 6mm at the wide end and 18mm at the long end (roughly 40mm-120mm on a 35mm camera). yes, the 10x zooms typically will go out to around 400mm equiv, so they are longer telephoto. some of the bigger 'zooms' are wider at the wide end and then not quite as long.

as for the OP's question, i'm guessing the 3x zoom (which is roughly going to be under 150mm compared to a 35mm camera) will be pretty short to capture the boys in the marching band from the stands.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Be careful with terms like 3x or 10x zoom. Those typically refer to the ratio between the widest and longest zoom the camera offers. A 3x zoom could start really, really wide and only zoom to moderately wide. A different 3x zoom could start barely wide at all and zoom pretty close.

In the 35mm SLR world, a 24mm-105mm lens and a 100mm-400mm lens could both be described as 4x zooms, but they obviously cover very different ground.

 

[JR6ooo4]

Right alsipd. Zoom is only as big as the starting (wide) mm length. I have a canon 70-300 IS. 300/70 is only a 4.2 zoom. But 300mm is pretty far.

Marching band is similar to theater. The choreography is the same every time. You can go watch the practice and learn when to shoot. If you have that many hours free. But in practice you can get real close!

Mikeeee


dang I'm slow....


so this point is clear.... I may assume?

 

[aliwolly]

Oooh... Marching Band! I was in the color guard when I was in school! Don't forget to take some wide angle shots of the whole field too - I used to get so embarrassed when my parents would photograph (and video) just me on the field and was always curious about how the whole band looked and if we were getting our drill right.

Have fun!!!

 

[TSBRN]

Thanks everyone for their helpful tips!

 

[brer rabbit 28]

i currently have a sony camera with the usual x3 optical zoom.Now i would really like to upgrade to something with more optical but i am unsure if it will make so much difference.Would like to stay with sony purely because i have all the memory sticks.
Could anyone advise me if it is worth it please?

 

[Groucho]

i currently have a sony camera with the usual x3 optical zoom.Now i would really like to upgrade to something with more optical but i am unsure if it will make so much difference.Would like to stay with sony purely because i have all the memory sticks.
Could anyone advise me if it is worth it please?

Make so much difference in what way?

The longer zoom makes a huge difference IMHO. I started with a 6x then went to a 12x before I got a DSLR - I really missed the extra zoom when I'd use my wife's compact 3x camera.

I believe that the Sony H5 is very popular at the moment, if your budget allows. It has a 12x zoom.

 

[Caitsmama]

Also, the sony H2 has a 12x zoom for about 100.00 less than the H5, only difference is the amt. of MP (6.0 for the H2, and 7 for the H5) .. Also the Canon S3 has 12x zoom as well..
To the OP - i too have a sony 3x zoom right now, and hope to upgrade before we go to WDW next mo. and i have been looking hard at the Sony H2. (the H5 is nice too, just can't justify the 100.00 more right now). But, i have also looked at the Panasonic version, which also has the 12x zoom.